Yaho.com

[dtobias]

http://www.kodiak.com/ has some sponsored links relating to Kodiak, Alaska, but it also has a banner ad near the bottom for a Kodak camera.

http://www.kodiak.info/ is another site full of sponsored links about Kodiak, AK, but http://www.kodiak.org/ is an actual site with real content about the place. http://www.kodiak.net/ is just a placeholder page.

 

[JumpingJack]

A word which, in the case of this domain name, is not being used for anything relevant to its meaning.

Kodiak is a town in Alaska. You can move there and start a camera company. And when you start selling your "Kodiak Cameras", you'll find out how far that kind of reasoning will get you.

I don't see your point here at all. Obviously if Goggle started up a funky colorful search engine they would be screwed, is that your point? But they aren't, and it doesn't matter if the name isn't being used for anything relevant or not. As far as it stands right now, the people who own Goggle.com have as much of a right to own it as Google does. Yeah if some guy used Kodiak to sell camera's he would be in shit, but he could start selling rubbers bear claw dildos on there or something and there is nothing kodak could do, except argue that the name is similiarily confusing to their trademark, and that people are getting confused thinking they are buying dildo's from Kodak instead of Kodiak, but tell me.... as a lawyer do you see that happening?

Goggle.com = $$$ and there is nothing google can do to get that domain from them as it stands now.

 

[jberryhill]

Goggle.com = $$$ and there is nothing google can do to get that domain from them as it stands now.

The inquiry that immediately follows from the premise is why does goggle.com get a lot of traffic?

If it receives a lot of traffic as a result of people trying to reach google, and if the domain name is operated in such a way as to do nothing other than capitalize on consumer confusion with google, then I would not conclude there is "nothing" google could do.

 

[Dave Zan]

Hmmm...just went to goggle.com and it did a "free scan" to my computer
(which I stopped). It's currently showing a sort of anti-spyware program
called SpyBouncer.

I doubt google will have much difficulty proving their stance on all 3 UDRP
points. If the current owner can't prove bona fide use by somehow relating
the word "goggle" to what s/he's showing (and will either be truly hardpressed
or won't be able to), then they have a chance of losing.

(Damn site tried to install whatever...checking my PC for unwanted guests...)

 

[OgieOgalthorpe]

So anyone have insight into the original poster's question??

 

[fini]

Surely doesn't the very fact that goggle.com's still there point to google's inability to do anything about it?

fini

 

[ParkQuick.com]

Surely doesn't the very fact that goggle.com's still there point to google's inability to do anything about it?

fini

It may just reflect the fact that Google hasn't bothered with them yet. In this case I would certainly defer to John Berryhill's expertise. Goggle.com would probably be fine if they stuck to selling goggles. As soon as they appear to be milking traffic from Google they are on shaky ground.

 

[jberryhill]

There are two "if" clauses in what I said. I don't have an opinion as to whether those clauses are satisfied.

 

[Restecpa]

Goggle.com is definitely the best type-in name, no one can argue that. There is none better

Sex.com

 

[namestrands]

Nobody is untouchable... even Microsoft.. the EU successfully won their case over the Media Player issue.

there is also the Issue of MikeRoweSoft.com Some claims are just laughable and no matter how expensive the Lawyers, if the case sucks and has no merit then any decent judge would throw it out..

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

brandstrand wrote:

Yaho.com is a great name and I am sure someone was rewarded for it accordingly and the fact that there is no publicity it shows that a settlement was made with added HUSH money...

We can debate it but the previous owner is smiling all the way to his new Aston Martin.. KUDOS to him
+++++++++++++++++

How can you make that conclusion?

More likely the owner was threatened with a lawsuit by Yahoo, and caved in.

That means no Astin Martin --not even a bus fare.

Cybersquatting does NOT pay.

 

[namestrands]

You say Tomato I say Potato.. hey I like the little world I live in.. dont demolish it :wink:

 

[namedropper]

You say Tomato I say Potato.. hey I like the little world I live in.. dont demolish it :wink:

So you encourage cybersquatting? Take it to another forum because we don't need that kind of crap here where people are discussing legal issues, not immoral thievery.

 

[namestrands]

There have been several instances of companies, individuals or governments trying to get domain names away from their current owners by making false claims of trademark violation. Sometimes they are successful. This practice is called reverse-cybersquatting.

 

[Dr. Domaining]

Ha ha ha.

Yes Goggle.com is indeed the best No trademark issues either, since Goggle is a word. Goggle has an OVT w/ extension of 220,000 for the month of October. Microsoft.com only has 240,000 Ahh.... I will cherish the day when a google typo beats the actual microsoft site in OVT results lol.

 

[peekaboo]

Cybersquatting does NOT pay.

so u r saying owners of goggle dot com aren't getting paid? d